* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Dprive Status Pages

DNS PRIVate Exchange (Active WG)
Int Area: Éric Vyncke, Erik Kline | 2014-Oct-17 —  

IETF-110 dprive minutes

Session 2021-03-09 1300-1500: Room 4 - dprive chatroom


minutes-110-dprive-00 minute

          # DNS Privacy Exchange (DPRIVE) WG
          ## IETF110
          * Date: Tuesday 09 Mar 2021
          * Time: 1200-1400 UTC
          * MeetEcho: http://www.meetecho.com/ietf110/dprive/
          * Minutes: https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-110-dprive
          ### Chairs
          * Tim Wicinski tjw.ietf@gmail.com
          * Brian Haberman brian@innovationslab.net
          ### Responsible Area Director
          * Éric Vyncke evyncke@cisco.com
          ### DataTracker
          * https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/dprive/documents/
          ## Agenda
          ### Administrivia
          * Agenda Updates, etc,  10 min
          * NOTE WELL : https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html
          ### Current Working Group Business
          *   DNS over QUIC
              - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic/
              - Authors, 20 minutes
              - Chairs Action: ?
              * Sara Dickinson:
                  * 4y since first proposed DoQ. How time flies
                  * Still some uncertainty on draft direction. orig draft only
                  stub-to-recursive. is the proto needed? performance Qs &c.
                  * (Sara reviews history of draft revs)
                  * slide 5: review of implementations (if you want to see how
                  many there are, types of contexts/OS)
                  * claims from Adguard works better in mobile
                  * DoQ looks analogous to DoT in discovery (an open question)
                  * stream model needs mods to support XFR. slides 9-10 discuss
                  the choices the WG has to make
                  * summary, 3 Qs to WG. 1. head to spec 2. does it encompass
                  recursive to auth.  3. if it does rec-to-auth how to handle XFR
              * Questions/Comments
                  * Jan Včelák: nice if covered everything we need now. not sure,
                  if covered every future case, think we need XFR now. mentioned
                  problem is multiple messages, if server used DoQ, if it **needs**
                  to send multiple answers: the limitation came from TCP, for QUIC
                  we have different signalling, can use stream encoded, can send
                  much larger responses for XFR so can maybe make it work with
                  the simpler approach. OTOH thinking use cases like proxies. If
                  change this, then proxies wouldn't work.
                      * Sara: good point(s) included the 65k limit, same as DoH
                      the principle of larger packet sizes came up, same issue
                      with proxying and compat with other transports. updated in
                      01 version to packetsize, can revisit but we'd be rehashing
                      the same argument from DoH. solves problems to keep the limit.
                      * Jan then go with the 2byte prefix. Sara proxying is another
                      reason the solution proposed is good fit
                   * Ben Schwartz: Vote for port 853 UDP. DNS over DTLS draft
                   is experimental, minimally deployed, QUIC and DTLS are fully
                   de-muxable, designed to share ports, think we should aim to
                   have final port num when we have a standard be 853
                       * Sara: was a conversation offlist, others can speak to
                       port alloc better. Concern is that its a process barrier:
                       it will slow it down. dedicated port for QUIC, doesnt make
                       a huge amount of deployment difference (eg blocking) -was
                       considered, want to hear other people.
                       * **Brian** Take to the ML
                   * Jim Reid: uncomfortable with bytecount prepend. smells like
                   a layer violation. Advance a document, draw a ring around XFR,
                   TBD, deal with it later. get on with the core job, basic protocol
                   spec, deal with most common query/response deal with later
                       * Sara: proxies, translation, do have to "special-case" for
                       XFR, feels like a bit of a  but if have to redefine later,
                       different ALPN, want to fully assess if we can support in
                       the current protocol. 2byte len is just framing answers
                       within the stream otherwise a simple bytestream. really just
                       additional compatibility. Have to have these discussions,
                       which direction to take.
                   * Watson Ladd: didn't understand adv and disadv. to doing this
                   over 853.
                       * Sara: little bit of discussion last IETF. for
                       recursive-to-auth, packaging whole HTTP layer around DNS
                       queries. most recursive, auth, see that as uneccessary
                       overhead on that path. Want the cleaner, lighter, pure QUIC
                       mapping in this draft. If others remember differntly please
                       say so.
                   * David Schinazi: (ex Tech lead for QUIC in Chrome) not all
                   UDP ports are equal getting over the internet. using 443,
                   with ALPN demux, share service, would just work. Get the point
                   about fighting an uphill battle with purists but may be the
                   best deployment strategy
                       * Sara: take onboard.
          ### Related Business
          *   Oblivious DNS Over HTTPS
              - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pauly-dprive-oblivious-doh/
              - Authors, 20 minutes
              - Chairs Action: Call for adoption
              * Christopher Wood
                  * Post Singapore IETF much work.
                  * Discussion of goals of the proto, risk in collusive behaviour
                  between the parties (can't be constrained formally AIUI)
                  * slides 4-8: demo of the protocol entities, "how things work"
                  * other ways to get to the outcome (eg using SOCKS) -ODOH aims
                  to be "unlinkable" between discrete queries, noting it does a
                  bunch more than the more general problem and allows the proxy
                  NOT to become a general proxy (with all the risks)
                  * deployment questions, (slide 10) things which really need to be
                  talked out on the ML probably. The collusion risk is explicitly
                  marked out-of-scope.
                  * in use, in production. on cloudflare edge. "it's being
                  dogfooded" -formal analysis being done (Tamarin)
                  * "given interest in this protocol, investment, deployment:
                  Is there interest in Adoption Experimental V1"
              * Questions/Comments
                  * Paul Hoffman: reasonable experiment, but not WG work. take to
                  independent submissions "not crazy, proof reasonable security
                  concept" hesitant to take to this WG, Don't know how many users
                  will understand the advantage "dont trust my immediate upstream
                  to not collude" -especially when the best performance is they are
                  the same organisation. Don't bring it in the WG, get published,
                  let people bang on it
                      * Chris: tricky to explain the privacy benefits.
                  * Eric Orth: don't see the issue with explaining. Temp thing
                  before new stuff, oblivious HTTPS, doesn't seem like full
                  fledged, adopted
                      * Chris: definitely not STDS track! but, use-case right now,
                      want to continue experiment.
                  * Tommy Pauly: echo Experimental appropriate. if WG doesn't want
                  it, go direct to independent, or sponsored experimental, prefer
                  to see it adopted as a quick processing thing for this WG to have
                  the opportunity to reviews, give input on text. How to think
                  about this area in general (future protocols) as implementor,
                  planning having support for this, from Apple's side, reach a lot
                  of users. provide benefit without deep understanding. Ask Chair,
                  some kind of poll, best way to go forward.
                      * Brian: can poll now, or repeat on the ML. Prefer to
                      take Action-item poll adoption on ML, elaborate on 3
                      primary options assuming Exp: adopt, independent, or AD
                      sponsored. (3rd requires chat with AD)
                      * Tim: lets use the show-of-hands tool
                      * Chris: comment in chat: discovery. Agree its open problem,
                      hence out-of-scope. future spec can solve
                      * Tim: can adopt, noodle, not proceed. Some people feel
                      thats burning WG time. But, I think its useful
                  * Watson Ladd: Stuck in RFC-ED. like whats on the slide, ODOH
                  as experimental, bunch of +1s in the chat to Experimental
                  * Ben Schwartz: said earlier support adopt, but heard change in
                  context of discussion with authors noting deployment. this may
                  not be a great fit for adopt, adoption means change control. need
                  to think its right and reasonable to take a step back, what is
                  really the right long-term solution here. how does this work in a
                  world with DoQ, router architecture. Most interested in WG taking
                  it on to design V2. let this version go out as-is from Authors
                      * Chris: these are things we have to sort through, why I
                      think experimental adoption in WG is the right thing. dont
                      think we need to focus on V2, point of the exercise is to
                      make sure we work out all the kinks in v1 in the experiment
                      so in V2, easier time to get out the door
                  * Ben: too late for non-breaking compat changes. get RFC number,
                  move ahead, don't mess with it
                      * Chris: open to handing over change control if thats whats
                      needed. not seeking RFC num. want right way to shape the
                      protocol. don't see an issue in that respect
                      * Brian: do you want a doc which reflects current deployment
                      or one which changes?
                          * Chris: we expect the doc to change. by no means rigid
                          with respect to whats in the doc, proto, crypto.
                  * Ted Hardie: Cache semantics, what the experiment tells
                  you. great deal of interest from proponents, relationship to rest
                  of DNS, support experimental, but cautious to draw conclusions to
                  broader use of HTTP. way caches work, HTTP vs DNS not always the
                  same. concern that presume design for more limited MIME types,
                  DNS cache mechanisms, harbinger of good result in HTTP. support
                  going forward but be cautious what the results mean. Oblivious
                  DOH will be divergent from Oblivious HTTP because of cache
                  differences between two different arenas
                      * Chris: there are subtle differences. can't lift ODOH
                      results to DOH. hope is that we can use ODOH, divergence,
                      delta very minimal not due to security, crypto changes,
                      more the underlying technology
                  * Tommy Pauly: scope difference is why interesting to pursue ODOH
                  on its own now, that scope is more tractable in short-term. Change
                  control, If adopted WG hs complete change control over proto. the
                  doc is already designed to be versioned, has draft aligned version
                  num, experience in QUIC. keep it up to date, aligned to WG. not
                  a blocker
                  * David Schinazi: job last year making google quic IETF quic. if
                  we'd said "cant do  its already deployed" we wouldn't have
                  QUIC. we should do the exact same thing (process?) here. not a
                  problem, its how we do it in this SDO. fully support doing it
                  here, not a pushback reason, tis why its here.
                  * Eric Orth: DNS is a specific case, Web used to "good samaritan"
                  servers, could find an ecosystem for ODOH emerges. 5 years down
                  the line, nobody wants to run OHTTP at scale but run ODOH fine,
                  still trying to make the ecosystem work for OHTTP.
              * Brian: Poll showed 23 interested in adopt, 13 not
              interested. Action-item: solicit ML Adoption as noted above.
          ### DNS Authoritative Encryption Discussion
          * Scott Hollenbeck asks for comments to Requirements draft status
              * Brian: not getting enough feedback from WG. encourage people to
              bring topics to ML, to have discussion. Can't decide which of the
              two relevant drafts fix the problem (this is coments to DNS Auth
              Enc discussion)
              * Benno: "well. yes.. and no." more than happy to work with the WG
              on the requirements doc, incorperate discussion from IETF109 and
              ML. Would like to hear from WG how useful the document is. Happy to
              do the work, demonstrated need. Step back one:
                  * "is this a useful doc, know the chairs, some individuals like,
                  think its useful but, what does the WG at large think?"
              * **Action Item** - come up with set of recommendations for the
              * Paul Hoffman: we have two problems. Current requirements doc
              trying to "shoehorn" two things into one doc but clear from ML,
              some people care about one bit, some about another. Fine.. if the
              requirements doc can cover this, one or multiple solutions docs,
              can point to use-case doc.
              * Peter van Dijk: like having this document but 'requirements'
              is such a strong word.
              * Brian: other ways to think about this, but important discussion
              point for ML
          *   Recursive to Authoritative DNS with Encryption
              - Authors, 45 minutes
              - Chairs Action: Facilitate new edits
              * Peter van Dijk
                  * working with paulH on the problem, adopted work
                  * solves the DNS discovery problem, has comparisons of approaches,
                  using TLSA or SVCB. has overview of the distinctions
          *  Signaling Authoritative DNS Encryption
              - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rescorla-dprive-adox-latest/
              - Authors, 15min
              - Chairs Action:
              * Eric Rescorla
                  * Talk about what we're trying to accomplish, what can, and
                  cannot be done
                  * (slide on threat models)
                  * what needs to be encrypted? -both sides of traffic to parent
                  and child, to prevent information leakage
                  * discusses SVCB
                  * Ben Schwartz: NS name insecure, even if DNSSEC sign, with SVCB
                  could be an attacker, not received over a private channel
                  * Paul Wouters: not about not wanting to serve SVCB. no mechanism
                  yet, hard to get new records into the system eg trouble with
                  CDNS CDS. its not "don't like it" the reality of operation of the
                  DNS, registry system makes this hard. Can do SVCB at the child,
                  for in-baliwick have no chance of privacy.
                  * Jonathan Reed: don't like "can never do anything new in the
                  parent" will lead to hacks we never intended. registry ecosystem
                  so frozen, we can't do this, lets say this in DNSOP. everything
                  new in the parent has to work in the child but "we can never
                  change the parent" we have to get past this. interim methods
                  until we get what we want in the parent. This is a non-starter
                  * Jim Reid: provisioning in the parent, one problem. zone cut
                  semantics issues, DNSSEC deployment, implementation concerns,
                  for people writing resolvers.
                  * "Its TLS all the way down"
                  * three contentious issues DANE vs WebPKI DoT vs DoH why not
                  both? SVCB is flexible.
              * Brian: we have 25 min for discussion over both drafts, what the
              WG wants to do, how to move forward.
                  * Kirsty Paine: to clarify.. "how security works" slide. some
                  "if" qualified statements. the properties are different, can't
                  bundle them together. Another slide, discussing the thread model
                  including some attack models and not others. Q: how do you make
                  the value judgement and what is the thread model if not here,
                  and what do you lose by not considering it here.
                      * Eric: to take the second Q first. Its a weaker attacker
                      issue, concrete example argue need recur-parent and
                      recur-child. So, depending where attacker is, on which
                      path, then.. alters what you need to do. Absolutely right,
                      DNSSEC/TLS apply different values here. This is part of
                      the confusion of "what are you trying to achieve" -not
                      attempting to provide integrity for any records except the
                      ones needed to get TLS. So, ignore all the other stuff,
                      but for authenticating the NS and SVCB, roughly equivalent
                  * Ben Schwartz: to the first draft of the two, what we had,
                  before, was a way for auth servers to get some traffic,
                  without guaranteeing uptime. the current draft makes the
                  choice auth or non-auth choice of the requestor. no safe way
                  to deploy a new protocol before given its full SLA. Point 2:
                  requirements drafting is hard. do we need to figure out to
                  require, or not require changes to EPP spec and ICANN registry
                  agreements? Puzzle. Point 3: there is a path forward here
                  blending ideas. Roughly, looks like use DS-hack, to encode
                  just the flag that the child "plays the new game" then go ask
                  the child for SVCB rec to find what to do, costs latency but
                  only for the zones which opt in. Then eventually we get out
                  of the latency by putting SVCB recs in the parent, and having
                  the parents also do TLS or zoneMD digest. (root) only works
                  for out-of-baliwick NS. can start getting protected now/soon,
                  but can remove performance cost to make it more attractive.
                      * Paul H: Ben, thank you, yes. incremental is important. On
                      the general point adding recs to additional in parent. think
                      thats going to be a real issue. on the "opportunistic"
                      side don't care how it comes out, DS or whatever to be
                      clear, adding anything to the additional takes contracts
                      and updated s/w and auth s/w won't add willy-nilly to the
                      additional. Said in chat, if the way we WANT then go there,
                      don't be "oh its impossible" this is important encryption
                      don't give up now. Since we do have 1 WG doc now, slammed
                      one idea of fully auth in. EKR has a more full explanation
                      including use-case, happy to split it out again. Up to
                      chairs, Recommendation is, work on these two in parallel,
                      not jam into one document. However the WG wants to go is fine.
                  * Daniel Gillmor: Want to follow up on Ben, Paul "how to get to
                  deployment phase" if signalling is a hard fail thats a problem. If
                  its not a boolean, (and dont think it should be) then need to
                  think what the intermediate state is. report-only state, requires
                  reporting format, mechanism, to learn when failures. See this
                  in other situations. Glossed over that in these, significant
                  amount of engineering work.
                  * Puneet Sood: from google pDNS, agree with DKG. need transitional
                  support, partial, opportunistic
                  * Robert Evans: Google, tech lead cloud DNS, so for the auth
                  server interest. EKRs proposal interesting, focussed on the
                  authenticated case, number of paths to security, incremental
                  adoption of SVCB provides a road to security. If the elements,
                  the TLS cert checks out, and the NS set is validatable, and a
                  secure signal in SVCB you have a secure path. Could begin with DoH
                  or DO53 query for SVCB. over time, paths, DS record with format
                  or parent SVCB, adopted, then increases security. Can have fully
                  secure from integrity PoV SVCB today, without parents as long
                  as there are DNSSEC sigs for the SVCB and (missed)
                  * Jim Reid: concerned we've moved to solutions, prematurely,
                  Not sure risk/threat analysis has been done. we're jumping ahead.
             * Brian: think this goes to ML discussion:
                 * Jim some stuff in other drafts not well aligned to things
                 discussed today
                 * Paul H: reporting mechanism, Auth server,
                 discussed in DNSOP, will be of interest, for general reporting
                 recursive to auth. could be used here as well. not concerned
                 about absence of reporting mechanism dont think we need our own,
                 generalised mechanism can be assumed
                 * Christopher Wood: Jim, nail down threat model, auth server,
                 figure out what it is, what are viable solutions within that
                 threat model
                 * EKR: agree threat model important. try to lay out in our
                 document. Lets try to get to agreement. Don't know what else
                 needs to be don in the threat model. somebody else can weigh in
                 * Brian: want the ML to agree to the model laid out, or say what
                 they want to change.
                 * Ben: agree with threat model on EKRs first slide. Aspiration is
                 "solve the whole thing" going to produce some solutions which
                 solve only part of it, weaker threat models EKR mentioned maybe
             * Tim:
                 * recomm for authors on requirements doc (Scott)
                 * more interest in OHTTP work. adopt or not (call to ML)
                 * work with peter/paul new edits for Opportunistic draft
                     * Paul H: Q for next-step where do requirements get
                     specified? could be unauth draft talking reqts, and fully
                     auth draft talk about theirs, or they go into a single doc,
                     worst-case is 3 docs talking about it. Chairs to figure
                     out. Speaking for Peter happy to throw ours out to the doc,
                     but it hasn't been worked on. Better to have them in the
                     fully auth doc.
                         * Tim: Brian and I were not sure it would ever get
                         published, WG doc status, have to take this back. need
                         WG feedback.
             * Brian: adopt EKRs document?
                 * Eric: fine with that but also fine with it not being done right
                 away. Want to move how we're moving forward, not want 9 years
                 workshopping requirements, want to get to solutions. If people
                 think the Reqts laid out roughly suitable, solition roughly
                 suitable, then move forward with that
                     * Tim:agree nobody wants to workshop requirements forever.
             * Brian: AOB? three.. two.. one..
                 * Tim and I will go back,  how to drive requirements, other
                 Action-items kicked off.

Generated from PyHt script /wg/dprive/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -